FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GUINNESS IRELAND GROUP - AND - GUINNESS STAFF ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. "District plans".
BACKGROUND:
2. In November, 1996, the Company had plans to restructure the work of its Sales Representatives. It proposed that in January of each year that sales staff would prepare a "District Plan" for consideration by their respective Regional Sales Manager (RSM). The Plan involved analysing each Sales Representative's major outlets and determining the sales to be achieved for that year. It also involved determining the expenditure per outlet so as to ascertain whether it was cost effective.
The Union claims that the "District Plans" amounted to additional duties and that the Company was imposing this on its members without consultation or agreement. Furthermore, the Company had made no provision for any compensation for the extra workload involved in compiling the "District Plans". The Union sought the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission in this dispute but the Company would not attend a conciliation conference.
The Company states that as a result of subsequent meetings with the Sales Representatives held on the 15th September, 1997 that the "District Plans" as proposed in November, 1996 no longer applied. This was confirmed by letter to the Union dated 29th September, 1997. It also argued that "Planning" was an integral part of the job of a Sales Representative and that it was not an additional duty. The Company has currently introduced "Teamworks Seminars" and claims that its purpose is participative, based on involvement, consensus, openness and trust.
The Union claims that Sales Representatives are not opposed to planning as such, but want to be consulted where changes to their job description is involved. It claims that there have been agreed changes over the years but only after negotiations and agreement. On this occasion, the Company ignored all negotiating procedures and attempted to force through the new duties.
The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on the 6th October, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Changes in the working conditions of employees should be agreed with the Union following consultation.
2. There have been changes in the past to the job description of Sales Representatives but only after agreement.
3. The Union is not opposed to change as such but it should be consulted if such changes affects the employment prospects of its members.
4. There should be a Company/Union procedure put in place for progressing future proposed work changes.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a very competitive market. It must remain competitive or it will lose market share.
2. The planning aspect is part of the job description for Sales Representatives. It enables them to carry out their work in a more effective manner.
3. Management must be allowed to manage where operational issues are concerned. Only where there is disagreement should the Union get involved.
4. The Company has introduced "Teamworks Seminars" which will enable the sales staff to have an input into the planning procedure.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that on the basis of the Company letter dated 29th September '97 the issue of the District Plans proposed in Nov./Dec. 1996 has now been resolved. However to avoid a reoccurrence of this type of dispute the Court recommends that the Company/Union meet immediately with the objective of opening and strengthening procedures for dealing with proposed work changes. The Court considers the Company innovation of Teamworks Seminars as progressive and recommends that the Staff Association be given a more positive role in the set-up of this initiative.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
17th October, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.